In this photo released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani speaks during a news briefing after Iran and world powers agree in Geneva to a deal over Iran’s nuclear program, at the Presidency compound in Tehran, Iran, on Nov. 24. (Mohammad Berno, Presidency Office, AP)

What some of the nation’s political commentators and others are saying about the deal with Iran over nuclear weaponry:

Dangerous, wrongheaded deal
All the smiling embraces between diplomats in Geneva after the interim deal was signed notwithstanding, the Iranian regime remains a brutal and oppressive dictatorship that pursues nuclear weapons for the purpose of dominating the Middle East and threatening America and its allies, notably Israel. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry should reconsider their policy of rapprochement with Iran that is dismaying to Jerusalem and encouraging to Tehran.
— U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, for Foreign Policy

GOP mindlessly opposed
The opposition in this case is particularly mindless. Certainly there are reasons to be skeptical that Iran will act in good faith. But the deal is temporary — six months — and easily reversible. In the (likely) event that Iran doesn’t agree to a permanent accord to end its nuclear program, the tougher sanctions contemplated in Congress could be applied.
— Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writers Group
Not a surrender
“Netanyahu doesn’t know history,” declared the great Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer earlier this year. Nor does he know much about Iran, a country whose residents he thought were banned from wearing jeans. What he and his American allies do know is how to exploit historical analogies for political and ideological gain. Obama’s interim nuclear deal threatens their ability to do that, which is part of the reason it’s such a welcome thing.
— Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast

President Barack Obama on Thursday offered a compromise on the timetable of the Affordable Care Act. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Associated Press)

What the nation’s political commentators are saying about President Obama in light of his speech on the Affordable Care Act Thursday:

Obamacare is owned by Democrats
As the only socially transformational legislation in modern American history to be enacted on a straight party-line vote, Obamacare is wholly owned by the Democrats. Its unraveling would catastrophically undermine their underlying ideology of ever-expansive central government providing cradle-to-grave care for an ever-grateful citizenry.
— Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post Writers Group

Taking stock of the president
There are important questions about whether the fix President Obama offered today for Americans whose insurance policies were canceled will help them, whether it will hinder the broad goals of the health insurance reform law, and whether it will satisfy the opponents of reform. .. But this was also one of those moments when a nation takes stock of its president. And it seemed worth nothing here that Obama has dealt another blow to his own already damaged credibility with this latest reminder of how he and his team bungled the rollout of health care reform.
— Andrew Rosenthal, The New York Times

Obama ignoring provisions of act
Obama’s announcement should also put an end to the argument that the health-care law would be working great if only Republicans weren’t sabotaging it. … But it isn’t Republicans who are flouting the law anyway. It’s Obama, who has just announced on national television that he is — once again — going to ignore its provisions.
— Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg NewsRead more…

What political commentators are saying about the congressional deal on the federal budget:

The Republican collapse
This is an embarrassment for the country, yes, but it’s also an embarrassment for the Republican Party that lays bare their motives, tactics and intention. It may not be so easy for voters to forget this come next November.
— Charles M. Blow, New York Times

Ted Cruz, one sore loser
The amount of wreckage (Ted) Cruz has caused in such a short time is truly awe-inspiring. He has damaged his party, hurt the economy, lowered the nation’s standing and set back the conservative cause. But appearing at the Capitol on Wednesday morning, he wore a broad smile as reporters and cameras surrounded him to learn what further mayhem he was planning.
— Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writers Group
More Obama wins unlikely …
It is difficult to gauge exactly how much political capital the president has gotten out of his tough guy approach to the shutdown. But even if we concede that he is certainly a lot stronger than he was two months ago, he is not likely to enjoy another such moment of triumph again. That is, provided that (John) Boehner and the rest of the Republican Party don’t let (Ted) Cruz anywhere near the driver’s wheel again.
— Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary Magazine
… and the Tea Party won little
After precipitating a government shutdown in a quixotic attempt to derail the 2010 health care law (better known as Obamacare), Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his fellow Tea Party Republicans came away with a relatively minor change in the statute … and nothing else. No funding cuts, no delays, no exemptions.
— Jon Healey, Los Angeles Times

GOP spin on the shutdown
[Would] Republicans enter into another shutdown standoff with no fear? That’s not how they look at it. They view any attempt to blame them for the shutdown, and not the president, as media bias in concentrate. This shutdown proved them right, and they’ll carry that knowledge into the budget battle.
— David Weigel, Slate

G.W. Bush not to blame
By winning such a total victory, the President and Democrats now must accept responsibility, especially for the disaster of Obamacare. It’s going to be hard to blame that on George W. Bush.
— Ernest Istook, Washington Times

Give the president power
Now that it’s clear we’ve survived the debt crisis, the next step is to prevent it from happening again. Ever. How could we do that? … A constitutional amendment.
— Eric Posner, Slate

Not the end of strife
Obama may have succeeded this time, but GOP leaders plan to keep challenging his domestic agenda, especially his effort to include revenue increases and limit entitlement reductions in curbing the deficit.
— Carl Leubsdorf, Dallas Morning News

Let’s make a deal
Let’s think positive. Americans want to get back to normal. We want to admire the fall foliage and plan for Thanksgiving and complain about Congress’ failure to pass a farm bill. There is nothing we find more attractive than a budgetary can being kicked down the road.
— Gail Collins, The New York Times

A crowd waiting outside the Social Security Administration Card Center building was turned away for certain services due to the partial government shutdown Tuesday in Bloomington, Minn. (Elizabeth Flores. The Star Tribune/Associated Press)

What some of the nation’s political commentators are saying about the government shutdown:

Plenty of blame to go around
Whether it turns truly apocalyptic or ends up just being a short break in standard operating procedure, there’s plenty of blame to go around when it comes assigning responsibility for the government shutdown.The one thing that shouldn’t be slighted, though, is that it is ultimately Barack Obama’s fault. He’s the deciderer, right, the top dog? The eight years of his time in office will be known to future generations as the Obama Years and not the Boehner Perplex or the Reid Interregnum.— Nick Gillespie, Reason.com

The nature of political beliefs
To appreciate what is happening with the shutdown, we have to understand a bit more about the nature of political beliefs. It turns out that when people’s convictions are deeply held but false, efforts to correct those views can backfire. Such efforts tend to entrench and fortify those very convictions.— Cass R. Sunstein, Bloomberg News

Republican caucus has a point
The government shutdown is a bridge way too far, but I hate to admit that the right-wing Republican caucus sometimes has a point. Just take a look at what bureaucrats get up to on their equivalent of New Year’s Eve. It’s as wild and crazy a moment for them as it is for revelers in Times Square. The difference is that the functionaries get to blow taxpayer money.— Margaret Carlson, Bloomberg NewsRead more…

President Barack Obama addresses the nation in a live televised speech from the East Room of the White House in Washington on Sept. 10 (Evan Vucci, Associated Press, Pool)

What some of the nation’s political commentators are saying about President Obama’s speech Tuesday night on Syria and America’s involvement there:

Obama’s Syria muddle
What is the Obama administration plan in Syria? It depends on whom you ask and when. Tuesday night, President Obama, in his address to the nation, said that he had “asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force.” This contradicted what his secretary of state, John Kerry, had said in testimony to Congress just 11 hours earlier. “We’re not asking Congress not to vote,” Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee. “I’m not asking (for) delay,” he added later.— Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writers Group

Russia’s plan won’t work
Russia’s proposal for Syrian President Bashar Assad to place his chemical weapons under international supervision and then destroy them is quickly gaining steam. … There’s just one problem: the plan would be nearly impossible to actually carry out.— Yochi Dreazen, Foreign Policy

Scheduling a vote the right move
I think it is worth Obama and Congress threatening to schedule a vote to endorse Obama’s threat of force — if the Syrians and Russians don’t act in good faith — but not schedule a vote right now. (That was essentially the president’s message in his speech last night.) By “threatening to threaten,” Obama would retain leverage to keep the Syrians and Russians focused on implementing any agreement — but without having to test Congress’ real willingness to let him fulfill that threat. Because, if it failed to pass, the Russians and Syrians would have no incentive to move.— Thomas L. Friedman, New York TimesRead more…

Comments Off on What They Are Saying … about America’s involvment in Syria

Palestinians from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine wave the Syrian flag and shout slogans as they protest in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, against U.S. and French military intervention in Syria. (Said Khatibsaid, AFP/Getty Images)

What some political commentators and others are saying about the possibility of impending military action in Syria:

Anticipate the consequences
Supporters of the Iraq War thought we would just hand over the country’s government to new leaders. What actually happened — the state collapsed, and the U.S. had to pick up the pieces — didn’t figure in the debate at all. This time, we ought to know that if military action leads to the end of Assad’s regime, our limited engagement could quickly expand.— Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg News

Now wanted: an accomplice
Now, concerning Syria, [President Obama] lectures Congress, seeking an accomplice while talking about accountability. Perhaps he deserves Congress’ complicity — if he can convince it that he can achieve a success he can define. If success is a “shot across the bow” of Syria’s regime, he cannot fail: By avoiding the bow, such a shot merely warns of subsequent actions.— George F. Will, Washington Post Writers Group

Why does it have to be America?
The problem is that America seems war weary. If the administration is correct, this is a human rights tragedy. Something should be done. But must we always be the ones to do it? Does protecting America’s interest mean policing the world’s horrors? When innocent lives are taken in the most reprehensible of ways, to whom do their souls cry? Whence comes their justice? Is America’s moral leadership in the world carved out by the tip of its sword?— Charles M. Blow, The New York TimesRead more…

What some of the nation’s commentators are saying about the speech given by President Barack Obama at Wednesday’s commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

What now? Go to work
If one theme was common among all the speakers and all the crowd, it was that there remains much to do. They seemed to agree that while progress must be celebrated, celebration should not blind us to the fact that equality is not yet reality. In their different ways, they all provided the same answer to that question.
Where do we go from here? We go to work.— Leonard Pitts Jr., The Miami Herald

Obama should have stayed home
If Barack Obama had been anyone else except the president of the United States speaking Wednesday at the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, his speech might have been considered good. President John F. Kennedy stayed at the White House during the march 50 years ago. Because he didn’t really say anything substantive, perhaps [President] Obama should have stayed home, too.— Lewis W. Diuguid, Kansas City Star

Obama’s speech unremarkable
The sequel rarely lives up to the original, and those commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington never had a chance. “It won’t be as good as the speech 50 years ago,” President Obama told an interviewer. Obama fulfilled his prediction. His 29-minute address, 12 minutes longer than King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, was at times moving, but — inevitably — unremarkable compared with the legendary oratory he was memorializing.— Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writers GroupRead more…

Comments Off on What They Are Saying … about Obama’s speech on MLK anniversary

A man wears a single bullet around his neck over his Trayvon Martin T-shirt as people hold placards and shout slogans during a rally in Los Angeles in the aftermath of George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the shooting death of Florida teen on July 15. (Frederic J. Brown, AFP/Getty Images)

What some of the nation’s political commentators are saying about the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman in the death of teenager Trayvon Martin.

“They all look like Trayvon”
So we know what stalked Trayvon down that street last year. We know what killed him. And we know why the people who were paid to give a damn about that, didn’t. You see, we have not the luxury of self-delusion. We have sons and grandsons and nephews, and we must teach them, too, how America is. They are cocky and invincible in the way boys always are. And they all look like Trayvon.— Leonard Pitts Jr., The Miami Herald

Hoodies blind people to truth
I don’t like what George Zimmerman did and I hate that Trayvon Martin is dead. But I also can understand why Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize. I don’t know if Zimmerman is a racist. Yet I’m tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that I am a racist for recognizing the reality of urban crime in America. The hoodie blinds them as much as it did Zimmerman.— Richard Cohen, Washington Post Writers Group

A wrenching coda
In a way, the not-guilty verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman for his killing of Trayvon Martin was more powerful than a guilty verdict could ever have been. It was the perfect wrenching coda to a story that illustrates just how utterly and completely our system of justice — both moral and legal — failed Martin and his family.— Charles M. Blow, The New York TimesRead more…

Rainbow flags line the courtyard at San Francisco’s City Hall building last week. The US Supreme Court struck down The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and declared that same-sex couples who are legally married deserve equal rights to the benefits under federal law that go to all other married couples. (Josh Edelson, AFP/Getty Images)

What some of the nation’s pundits and others are saying about the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act:

The ruling was illegitimate
It should … be noted that Proposition 8 has not been invalidated, as many in the media have erroneously reported. The case was dealt with on a narrow procedural basis; the appellate court decision was vacated, and it now goes back to the trial court to decide what will happen with the law. It’s the view of many Americans that Proposition 8 remains the law of the land in California unless a higher court invalidates it at some point in the future. That said, Wednesday’s procedural ruling is an illegitimate decision.— Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, Special to the Washington Post

Procedure over people
No doubt, proponents of equal rights for all should celebrate today’s rulings. Yet they should not mistakenly ignore the limits of what the court has done. The court’s promotion of same-sex marriage is like a shotgun wedding: done with reluctance and without the loving embrace of someone fully committed to the sacred union.— Adam Winkler, Daily Beast

Culture war was won
The point here is that gay marriage advocates won the legal war because they first won the culture war. Those conservatives who hope to avoid the same outcome on other issues would do well to remember that.— Jonathan Tobin, Commentary Magazine

Anti-gay is yesterday
Cheer up, conservatives. The court, at long last, has done what the people want. Unelected judges are no longer the nosy outsiders defying the country’s values. You are.— William Saletan, SlateRead more…

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., accompanied by fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus, express disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County vs. Holder that invalidates Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on June 25 n Washington. (J. Scott Applewhite, Associated Press)

What some of the nation’s political writers are saying about the Supreme Court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act:

“Come and walk in my shoes”
The Supreme Court has stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act. Although the court did not deny that voter discrimination still exists, it gutted the most powerful tool this nation has ever had to stop discriminatory voting practices from becoming law. Those justices were never beaten or jailed for trying to register to vote. They have no friends who gave their lives for the right to vote. I want to say to them, “Come and walk in my shoes.”— U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., Special to The Washington Post

Voters rights will be weakened
The full magnitude of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder has yet to be understood, but it is deeply troubling. The inevitable impact will be to weaken voters’ rights at a time when election-driven efforts to suppress those rights in certain populations — for partisan political gain — have increased exponentially. It will be more difficult to prevent states from discriminating against voters on the basis of race. State legislators will be encouraged to see what they can get away with, and race-based incidents of discrimination will increase.— Gregory B. Craig, Special to The Washington Post

Roberts ended the civil-rights era
The civil-rights era ended June 25 — or at least that’s what the historians will say about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as unconstitutional. Congress enacted that law — one of the two crown jewels of the civil-rights movement — because blacks were being denied access to the vote through unfair state-imposed tests in the still-segregated South. By striking down that law as an outmoded infringement on states’ rights, the court has flipped the rules once and for all: The justices, and not the elected Congress, now decide what remedy is needed to effectuate the most basic right in a democracy.— Noah Feldman, Bloomberg NewsRead more…

Vincent Carroll is The Denver Post's editorial page editor. He has been writing commentary on politics and public policy in Colorado since 1982 and was originally with the Rocky Mountain News, where he was also editor of the editorial pages until that newspaper gave up the ghost in 2009.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Posts by Category

Posts by Category

Idea Log Archives

Idea Log Archives

About The Idea Log

The idea log The Denver Post editorial board shares commentary and opinion on issues of interest to Coloradans.